Marx’s Historical Critique of Proudhon’s Political Economy

Unlike bourgeois economists, who affirm the capitalist social system, Marx adopts an attitude of negation and critique toward it. In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx takes Proudhon’s political economy as a typical case and critiques the ahistorical character of Proudhon’s political economy from three aspects—its object of study, its method of creation, and its scientific nature—thereby highlighting the historical dimension of his own critique of political economy.

与资产阶级经济学家肯定资本主义社会制度的态度不同，马克思对资本主义社会制度持一种否定和批判的态度。在《哲学的贫困》中，马克思以蒲鲁东的政治经济学理论为典型，从研究对象、创作方法和科学性质这三个方面批判了蒲鲁东政治经济学的非历史性，彰显了其政治经济学批判的历史向度。

A Historical Critique of the Object of Study of Proudhon’s Political Economy

对蒲鲁东政治经济学研究对象的历史批判

As a science, political economy has a specific object of study, and that specific object is all economic facts. By “economic facts” is meant ideas within the economic sphere and economic categories, constructed by abstract economic categories. In Proudhon’s political economy, economic facts signify a form of social life unfolding within a series of economic relations. By “economic relations” is meant the relations between people as manifested in economic categories. This relation is a categorical abstraction and an economic expression of the sensuous social relations between people, and the expression and manifestation of this relation cannot be separated from economic categories. That is to say, if actual individuals with sensuous life are not placed into personless economic categories, they cannot constitute economic relations, and political economy loses its object of study. It is in this sense that Marx criticizes Proudhon’s political economy for directly treating the study of ideas as the study of people’s actual economic activities and economic life, thereby using “the fantastic form of a relation between things” to obscure the sensuous social relations between people.[n]

作为一门科学，政治经济学有其特定的研究对象，这一特定的研究对象就是一切经济事实。所谓经济事实，即经济领域和经济范畴内的观念，它是由抽象的经济范畴所建构的。在蒲鲁东的政治经济学那里，经济事实所表征的是一种在一系列经济关系中展开的社会生活。所谓经济关系，即在经济范畴中所展现的人与人之间的关系。这一关系是人与人之间感性社会关系的范畴抽象和经济学表达，并且这种关系的表达和显现不能脱离经济范畴。也就是说，现实的具有感性生命的个人，倘若不被置入无人身的经济范畴中去，就无法构成经济关系，政治经济学也就失去了其研究的对象。正是在这个意义上，马克思批判，蒲鲁东政治经济学把对观念的研究径直看成对人的现实的经济活动和经济生活的研究，然后以“物与物的关系的虚幻形式”遮蔽人与人的感性社会关系。

Unlike Proudhon’s political economy, which is grounded in economic facts and takes economic relations as its object of study, Marx’s critique of political economy is grounded in the economic activities and economic practices of sensuous human beings and takes the social relations of production, or the social relations of production, as its object of study. In Marx’s view, all rational economic relations constructed by economic categories are merely categorical abstractions of sensuous relations of production—merely the theoretical expression and conceptual representation of sensuous relations of production, not the reverse. Economic relations are, rather, relations of production grasped within the determination of economic categories. In terms of ontological character, relations of production are primary, while economic relations are secondary. The abstract, eternal, and atemporal character of economic categories indicates that the economic relations constructed by them are unreal, eternal, and ahistorical relations. Unlike the ahistorical character of economic relations derived from abstract reason, the object of study of Marx’s critique of political economy—relations of production—is historically produced by actual individuals engaged in sensuous activity, who interact sensuously with actual nature. The historical production of this relation is not itself an abstract, brain-storming rational activity but an actual sensuous activity that transforms both nature and human beings themselves, demonstrating the sensuous actuality and historical generativity of this relation.

与蒲鲁东的政治经济学立足于经济事实，将经济关系作为研究对象不同，马克思的政治经济学批判立足于感性的人的经济活动和经济实践，将生产的社会关系或社会的生产关系作为研究对象。在马克思看来，一切由经济范畴所构筑的理性经济关系，其实不过是人的感性生产关系的范畴抽象，只是感性生产关系在理论上的表现和观念上的表达，而不是相反。经济关系毋宁说只是一种在经济范畴的规定中被把握的生产关系。就存在论性质而言，生产关系是一种第一性的东西，而经济关系则是一种第二性的东西。经济范畴的抽象性、永恒性和非时间性特征表明，由经济范畴所构筑的经济关系是一种非现实的、永恒的和非历史的关系。与源自抽象理性的经济关系的非历史性不同，马克思政治经济学批判的研究对象，即生产关系，是由同现实的自然进行感性交往的，从事感性活动的现实的个人历史地生产出来的。这种关系的历史生产本身并不是一种抽象的头脑风暴式的理性活动，而是一种改变自然和人自身的现实的感性活动，它表明这一关系的感性现实性和历史生成性。

A Historical Critique of the Method of Creation of Proudhon’s Political Economy

对蒲鲁东政治经济学创作方法的历史批判

The difference in the object of study directly leads to a divergence in the method of creation between Marx’s critique of political economy and Proudhon’s political economy. Because it does not inquire into or explain the sensuous historical movement that produces economic relations, Proudhon’s political economy uses the method of categorical abstraction to provide a theoretical description of actual relations, and what is abstracted away is precisely the non-rational historicity inherent in actual relations. Marx explicitly points out that in Proudhon’s political economy there is no history; “at most, there is the history of ideas, i.e., history reflected in the dialectical movement of pure reason.” Proudhon’s political economy, by detaching economic relations from a definite stage of historical development and treating them as independent relations and economic laws as eternal laws, is nothing but a metaphysical fantasy.

研究对象的不同，直接导致了马克思的政治经济学批判与蒲鲁东政治经济学在创作方法上的分野。由于不去追问和说明产生经济关系的感性历史运动，蒲鲁东的政治经济学运用范畴抽象方法对现实关系进行理论描述，所抽象掉的正是现实关系所本有的非理性的历史性。马克思明确指出，在蒲鲁东的政治经济学中是无历史可言的，“即使有，至多也只是观念中的历史，即反映在纯理性的辩证运动中的历史”。蒲鲁东政治经济学这种脱离一定的历史发展阶段将经济关系视为一种独立关系，并将经济规律视为一种永恒规律的做法，毋宁说只是一种形而上学的幻想。

Unlike the method of categorical abstraction in Proudhon’s political economy, the method of creation in Marx’s critique of political economy is historical dialectics. In Marx’s view, history is not a purely rational movement of ideas unrelated to sensuous time; the laws of historical movement and development should not be sought in the reason of pure conceptual categories unrelated to sensuous time, but rather in the economic activities (i.e., the contradictory movement of the mode of production and social relations) of sensuous human beings who are both the authors and the actors of history. On the basis of a definite mode of material production, sensuous human beings establish corresponding social relations of production. Once established, these sensuous relations become universal laws that regulate and dominate people’s economic activities and social life at a given historical stage of society. As the mode of production changes, the social relations of production built upon it also change. When social relations become incompatible with the development of the mode of production, these social relations impel sensuous human beings to “change their mode of production,” thereby promoting the development of the productive forces.

与蒲鲁东政治经济学的范畴抽象方法不同，马克思政治经济学批判的创作方法是历史辩证法。在马克思看来，历史不是一种与感性时间无关的纯粹理性的观念运动，历史运动和发展的规律也不应从与感性时间无关的纯粹观念范畴的理性中去寻找，而应从作为历史的剧作者和剧中人的感性的人的经济活动（即生产方式和社会关系的矛盾运动）中去寻求。在一定物质生产方式的基础上，感性的人与人之间建立相应的社会生产关系。这种感性关系一旦确立，就变身为规范和支配一定社会历史阶段人们经济活动和社会生活的普遍法则。随着生产方式的改变，建立在其基础上的社会生产关系也会发生改变。当社会关系与生产方式的发展不协调时，这种社会关系会促使感性的人“改变自己的生产方式”，从而促进生产力的发展。

The relations of production, as the object of study of Marx’s critique of political economy, are not produced out of nothing but are created by the sensuous socio-historical movement. Accurately understanding and grasping the non-rational historical origin, historical evolution, and historical forms of this object is the core meaning of Marx’s critique of political economy; consistently investigating and examining the different economic forms of different socio-historical formations (as well as different historical stages of the same social formation) on the basis of the historicity of this object is the fundamental principle of Marx’s critique of political economy. Through his critique of the ahistorical character of Proudhon’s method of categorical abstraction, Marx demonstrates that the historical dialectics of his critique of political economy is “in its essence” a critical and revolutionary method. In terms of its critical character, Marx’s critique of political economy is a historical critique of the economic and social formation of capitalist society at this specific historical stage; it is a critique of both the actual politico-economic historical process in sensuous society and the ideological concepts based on this actual politico-economic historical process of sensuous society, as well as a critique of the metaphysical character of these ideological concepts. In terms of its revolutionary character, the law of capitalist economic movement revealed by Marx’s critique of political economy is not only an economic law but also a historical law, because his understanding of this law proceeds from “the antagonism which constitutes the economic category and is inseparable from it,” and his grasp of this law is also carried out “from its transitory aspect” and from the aspect of its “inevitable downfall.”

作为马克思政治经济学批判研究对象的生产关系，并不是凭空产生的，而是由感性的社会历史运动创造出来的。准确理解和把握这一对象非理性的历史起源、历史演变和历史形态，是马克思政治经济学批判的核心意涵；始终根据这一对象的历史性来探究和考察不同社会历史形态（以及同一社会形态的不同历史阶段）的不同经济形式，是马克思政治经济学批判的基本原则。通过对蒲鲁东政治经济学范畴抽象方法非历史性的批判，马克思表明其政治经济学批判的历史辩证法“按其本质来说”是一种批判的和革命的方法。就批判性而言，马克思的政治经济学批判对资本主义社会这一特定历史阶段经济社会形态的批判是一种历史批判，它既是对感性社会中现实的政治经济历史过程的批判，又是对奠基于这种感性社会的现实政治经济历史过程之上的意识形态观念的批判，同时还是对这一意识形态观念的形而上学性质的批判。就革命性而言，马克思的政治经济学批判所揭示的资本主义经济运动规律不仅是一条经济学规律，更是一条历史规律，因为他对这一规律的理解是从构成经济范畴“并且同这些范畴分不开的对抗”入手的，他对这一规律的把握也是“从它的暂时性方面”和“必然灭亡”的方面进行的。

A Historical Critique of the Scientific Nature of Proudhon’s Political Economy

对蒲鲁东政治经济学科学性质的历史批判

Constrained by the limitations of its object of study and method of creation, the scientific nature of Proudhon’s political economy is questioned and criticized by Marx. Because it treats economic categories as “eternal ideas that have always existed” rather than as “the theoretical expression of relations of production corresponding to a definite stage of development of material production,” the so-called “scientific positivity” of Proudhon’s political economy is nothing but an abstract positivity and a conceptual positivity. This abstract and conceptual positivity reveals the uncritical character of Proudhon’s political economy in its theoretical essence. As discussed above, economic categories are inseparable from the antagonism that constitutes them. This antagonism that constitutes economic categories is not an abstract rational logical contradiction and antagonism but an actual sensuous activity of contradiction and antagonism; it does not originate from abstract rational logical movement but from actual sensuous historical practice. In this sense, unlike Proudhon’s political economy, which is an uncritical, abstract positive science, Marx’s critique of political economy is a critical, revolutionary historical science.

囿于研究对象和创作方法的限制，蒲鲁东政治经济学的科学性质遭到了马克思的质疑和批判。由于将经济范畴视为一种“历来存在的、永恒的观念”，而不是将其看作“历史的、与物质生产的一定发展阶段相适应的生产关系的理论表现”，蒲鲁东政治经济学所谓的“科学实证性”毋宁说只是一种抽象的实证性和观念的实证性。这一抽象的和观念的实证性暴露了蒲鲁东政治经济学在理论本质上的无批判性。如上文所述，经济范畴同构成这一范畴的对抗是分不开的。构成经济范畴的这一对抗，不是一种抽象的理性逻辑的矛盾和对抗，而是一种现实的感性活动的矛盾和对抗，它并非源自抽象的理性逻辑运动，而是源自现实的感性历史实践。从这个意义上说，与蒲鲁东的政治经济学是一门无批判的、抽象的实证科学不同，马克思的政治经济学批判是一门批判的、革命的历史科学。

As far as the scientific character of this discipline is concerned, unlike Proudhon’s political economy, which, standing on the side of the bourgeoisie, seeks science in the rational “head” in a transcendental manner, Marx’s critique of political economy leaves the speculative philosophical ground to “critically analyze established facts” and expounds a “science of real people and their historical development.” As far as the revolutionary character of this discipline is concerned, unlike Proudhon’s political economy, which appeals to economic reason through the abstract method of categories in search of a universal “scientific formula,” Marx’s critique of political economy is not derived uncritically from a transcendental formula but is drawn from the “critical understanding of historical movement” as it is sensuously given. For the sensuous historical movement itself contains a series of sensuous conflicts, contradictions and antagonisms, while at the same time creating the material conditions for resolving these conflicts, contradictions and antagonisms. That is to say, this sensuous historical movement is itself a critical and “movement that produces the material conditions for liberation” (i.e., a revolutionary movement). In a word, the critical and revolutionary elements contained in the scientific character of Marx’s critique of political economy do not come from the transcendental conception of a purely rational mind, but are “produced by the historical movement and participate fully and consciously in that historical movement.” It is in this sense that Marx’s critique of political economy can be called a genuine historical science.

就这一门科学的批判性而言，与站在资产阶级立场上的蒲鲁东的政治经济学用一种先验的方式在其理性的“头脑里寻找科学”不同，马克思的政治经济学批判离开了思辨的哲学基地“批判地分析既成的事实”，阐述了一种“关于现实的人及其历史发展的科学”。就这一门科学的革命性而言，与蒲鲁东政治经济学运用范畴抽象的方法诉诸经济理性以寻求一种万能的“科学公式”不同，马克思的政治经济学批判不是从一种先验的公式中非批判地导引出来的，而是从对感性“历史运动的批判的认识中”导引出来的。因为感性的历史运动本身既包含一系列感性冲突、矛盾和对抗，同时又创造着解决这一冲突、矛盾和对抗的物质条件。也就是说，这种感性的历史运动本身就是一种批判的和“产生了解放的物质条件的运动”（亦即革命的运动）。一言以蔽之，马克思政治经济学批判的科学性中包含的批判因素和革命因素均不是来自纯粹理性头脑的先验构想，而是“由历史运动产生并且充分自觉地参与历史运动的”。正是在这个意义上，马克思的政治经济学批判可谓是一门真正的历史科学。

(The author is an associate professor at the School of Philosophy, Wuhan University.)

(作者系武汉大学哲学学院副教授）